Memo to the antiwar movement
Dear protestors, Hey, great job with the anti-war rallies. You’re unquestionably a valid social movement that’s tough to ignore — especially when blocking traffic. However, the polls suggest you could be doing better. I’m on the other side of the fence, and I’ve been critical of some of you lately, so I’ll understand if you ...
Dear protestors, Hey, great job with the anti-war rallies. You're unquestionably a valid social movement that's tough to ignore -- especially when blocking traffic. However, the polls suggest you could be doing better. I'm on the other side of the fence, and I've been critical of some of you lately, so I'll understand if you take my advice with a grain of salt. However, I believe there is a genuine debate to be had about the current war, posrtwar reconstruction, and the future of U.S. foreign policy. While I support Operation Iraqi Freedom, I'll admit to some Mickey Kaus-style qualms about the grand neocon strategy, so I'd like to see some vigorous opposing arguments to be made. However, even if you can amass large numbers for street protests, it won't matter unless you have good arguments. And, to be blunt, some of your arguments are just God awful. Maybe they appeal to the anti-war base, but they'll turn off the rest of the country, which should be your target audience. So please jettison the following two arguments (I'll add more when I see them): 1) "Saddam is a creation of the United States". One of the mantras of the antiwar movement is that the U.S. armed and aided Saddam Husssein, and now we're reaping the whirlwind. It's basically an extension of the "we created bin Laden" argument. It's certainly true that the U.S. was friendly to Iraq during its war with Iran in the 1980's. However, relative to other states, we were positively standoffish. This chart of arms sales to Iraq from 1973-1990 makes it clear Saddam Hussein is a creation of Russia, China, and France. Oh, and here are the approximate figures for Iraqi imports from the permanent Security Council members for 2001, under the auspices of the Oil-for-Food program: France-- $650 million China -- $225 million Russia -- $220 million U.K. -- $100 million U.S.A. -- $50 million This is just the official stuff -- it doesn't count illicit arms purchases or smuggling. U.S. culpability pales in comparison to France, Russia, and China. Saddam is their creature, not ours. Don't try arguing otherwise. 2) "Bush is Hitler" Hyperbole like this is guaranteed to generate cheers from anti-war protestors, but it just convinces everyone else of that the anti-war movement is idiotarian and should therefore be ignored. [C'mon, how prevalent is this?--ed. Click here for one example. Last week, I heard the head of Chicago's anti-war group make this exact point -- as well as argue that the U.S. created Saddam] If you want to be taken seriously, disavow the Hitler analogies. Claiming that dissent is being stifled and the government is acquiring dictatorial powers just makes you look like sore losers.
Dear protestors, Hey, great job with the anti-war rallies. You’re unquestionably a valid social movement that’s tough to ignore — especially when blocking traffic. However, the polls suggest you could be doing better. I’m on the other side of the fence, and I’ve been critical of some of you lately, so I’ll understand if you take my advice with a grain of salt. However, I believe there is a genuine debate to be had about the current war, posrtwar reconstruction, and the future of U.S. foreign policy. While I support Operation Iraqi Freedom, I’ll admit to some Mickey Kaus-style qualms about the grand neocon strategy, so I’d like to see some vigorous opposing arguments to be made. However, even if you can amass large numbers for street protests, it won’t matter unless you have good arguments. And, to be blunt, some of your arguments are just God awful. Maybe they appeal to the anti-war base, but they’ll turn off the rest of the country, which should be your target audience. So please jettison the following two arguments (I’ll add more when I see them): 1) “Saddam is a creation of the United States”. One of the mantras of the antiwar movement is that the U.S. armed and aided Saddam Husssein, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind. It’s basically an extension of the “we created bin Laden” argument. It’s certainly true that the U.S. was friendly to Iraq during its war with Iran in the 1980’s. However, relative to other states, we were positively standoffish. This chart of arms sales to Iraq from 1973-1990 makes it clear Saddam Hussein is a creation of Russia, China, and France. Oh, and here are the approximate figures for Iraqi imports from the permanent Security Council members for 2001, under the auspices of the Oil-for-Food program: France– $650 million China — $225 million Russia — $220 million U.K. — $100 million U.S.A. — $50 million This is just the official stuff — it doesn’t count illicit arms purchases or smuggling. U.S. culpability pales in comparison to France, Russia, and China. Saddam is their creature, not ours. Don’t try arguing otherwise. 2) “Bush is Hitler” Hyperbole like this is guaranteed to generate cheers from anti-war protestors, but it just convinces everyone else of that the anti-war movement is idiotarian and should therefore be ignored. [C’mon, how prevalent is this?–ed. Click here for one example. Last week, I heard the head of Chicago’s anti-war group make this exact point — as well as argue that the U.S. created Saddam] If you want to be taken seriously, disavow the Hitler analogies. Claiming that dissent is being stifled and the government is acquiring dictatorial powers just makes you look like sore losers.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
